Or you can mail donations to Henry Shivley at P.O. Box 964, Chiloquin, OR 97624

Michael Allison Faces 75 Years In Illinois Prison for recording police WTWO!

This entry was posted in Videos. Bookmark the permalink.
8587

15 Responses to Michael Allison Faces 75 Years In Illinois Prison for recording police WTWO!

  1. Brian says:

    And as the stranglehold tightens the backlash cannot be far down the road in my opinion. This is beyond ridiculous. It seems clear that these states are being directed.and are governed by complicit madmen. This is truly alarming and speaks loudly of what’s around the bend. The legal sector is turning with increasing hostility on its own people. This is not America anymore.

    So this is “hope and change?” Whoopee!

  2. Raymond Sammarco says:

    This is the kind of tyrannical power I have always feared police and politicians would get. Police parade around as “gods” with badges thinking they can do no wrong and flaunt their power and authority as they please. They are do different from Hitlers SS or the Soviet KGB. It’s perfectly okay for them to record citizens “for evidence and their protection” yet citizens cannot record them. Does anyone else even realize how insane that concept is?!? We don’t have worry much about being enslaved by our government because in essence it’s already happening and will only get worse as more time goes by. They have taken our wealth, the have lordship over our property (don’t pay taxes and they seize it), they taken away most if not all of our liberties and keep them constantly under their watchful eyes. All that is left is for them to round us and up and kill us off. Get ready America, you’re in for a rude awakening when you finally realize these realities.

    • Clark Kent says:

      You’re right, Brian and Ray. People better wake up before it gets past the point of no return, and we’re damn close now !

  3. NYTIMESREPORTER says:

    Very serious stuff. Do not take this lightly!! In interviews with Holocaust survivors living in the US, they unanymously point out that this is EXACTLY one of the ploys the Nazis utilized in order to take over not only Germany, but many other countries. Wake Up America!!. Its happening right at your doorstep, and complacency will soon catch up with the revocation of our freedoms.
    Yes, It can and WILL happen in America, unless each and everyone makes their views and feelings known to government officials, and by writing each and every police department heads.

    • Brian says:

      And exactly how, pray tell, is that going to make any difference?What makes you think they give a damn what the people say, feel, or think?

      • NYTIMESREPORTER says:

        The power of the press,TV ,newsmedia investigative reporting and public outcry was totally absent in Nazi Germany.(And many other countries who ignored the problem, including US, )until it was too late. We recently went into one Illinois police station, cameras present, and asked to interview the Captain. He said he was “not guilty” of instigating the arrests for videotaping officers, and gave us the names of those in power who put out the order. At least its one step in the right direction. Had it not been for the press, you may never have known about this.

        • Brian says:

          Yes, of course what you say is valid. It’s just that what we are witnessing is simply incomprehensible and becoming overwhelmingly absurd.

          So if the Captain was not responsible who was and what is being done about it? If a citizen shows up with a camera or even just starts asking questions with no camera what happens to him? If they can do this what’s next? This is starting to feel like a reign of terror. Am I to understand that media personnel are allowed to film and private citizens do so at the risk of arrest? This is insane.

          Henry, what say you?

          • Henry Shivley - OR says:

            When they put cameras on our street corners and we objected, they said we had no expectation of privacy when out in public.
            These police officers are public employees. Anything they say and do while on duty is open to public scrutiny. Our Constitution says that all public meetings conducted by public officials shall be open to the public and public scrutiny.
            I do believe that what is most disturbing about this report is the court proceedings wherein the court refused to make a recorded record and likewise refused to allow the accused to make a record. This is clearly unconstitutional and represents secret court proceedings as there was also no stenographer. We have the absolute right under our Constitution to record our public officials/employees anywhere in public and to suggest otherwise is a blatant act of insurrection.

          • Brian says:

            Very well put, Henry. The questions are when and why did the watch dog cease to respect and therefore turn on its master and when and how does retraining commence?

            Without mainstream media coverage this trend will continue unbridled. We are heading down a frightening and dangerous path. There should be massive outrage instead of disgruntled mutterings. This is horrific in itself but even more alarming is the lack of reaction! This is really depressing.

            Thank you for your comments.

  4. NYTIMESREPORTER says:

    Agreed, Brian. Incomprehensible and totally absurd-Bordering on the dangerous.
    The police captain said to reporters “I was only following orders”
    Sound familiar? Check out The Nuremberg Trials. They were all “Following Orders”. What is more important, is that this is getting lots of publicity, and its all over the “Social Media” websites.

  5. Bob T Guy says:

    Better read this. US Court of Appeals decision last week.
    http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf

    Excerpt: When Glik affirmed that he was recording audio, the officer placed him in handcuffs, arresting him for, inter alia, unlawful audio recording in violation of Massachusetts’s wiretap statute. ……………………
    1. Were Glik’s First Amendment Rights Violated?
    The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First
    Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative.

    Allison will win. This news has to get out.

  6. Mark Schumacher says:
  7. Mark Schumacher says:

    UPDATE:

    US FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMS LEGALITY OF RECORDING OFFICERS:

    “Unfortunately, a big news story like Hurricane Irene is always going to steamroll over some unrelated news items that would otherwise deserve more attention, so here’s a belated acknowledgment of an important story that got a bit buried over the last few days.

    Last Friday, the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling that affirmed, stronger than ever, the rights of individuals to openly record the actions of police officers.

    In 2007, a young lawyer named Simon Glik was walking through Boston Common when he saw three police officers arresting a teenager. Glik thought the officers were getting a little rough, so he flipped open his cellphone camera and started shooting video.

    The officers arrested Glik for, in their minds, violating the state’s wire-tapping law, even though the whole incident happened out in public and Glik didn’t try to conceal the fact that he was recording.

    The ACLU took up Glik’s cause and the courts threw out the charges against him. Since then, the Boston Police Department has been instructing personnel that the state’s wiretapping law does not apply to people making unconcealed audio or video recordings in public. But Glik and the ACLU have pressed on, suing the BPD and the individual officers for violating his First Amendment rights.

    The officers moved to have the suit dismissed, saying they were just enforcing an interpretation of the law that was handed down to them by their superiors. But on Friday, the federal court disagreed.

    Judge Kermit Lipez writing for the unanimous panel, wrote, “Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting ‘the free discussion of governmental affairs.’”

    That means that Glik’s suit against the officers may now go forward; they could be found liable for Simon Glik’s legal costs, among other damages. And while, theoretically, this kind of thing doesn’t go on in Boston anymore, ACLU attorney Sarah Wunsch says the court’s ruling has broader significance.

    “It’s going to be very useful in cases around the country where police officers, whether they use wiretap statutes or disorderly conduct or other kinds of laws,” Wunsch said. “They’ve been using those to arrest people who have done nothing other than what Simon Glick did, which is to hold up a cellphone and record what the police are doing.”

    That’s exactly what the circuit court established as a civil right, enjoyed by everyone. Not just those of us in the media.

    “Changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw,” Judge Lipez wrote. “Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.”

    In other words, if you openly film a police officer and you don’t get in the way or cause a problem, you are within your rights, according to the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals.

    WBUR contacted the City of Boston to see if their lawyers wanted to make any statement. They said they are reviewing the court’s opinion and have not yet decided whether to file an appeal.”

    http://radioboston.wbur.org/2011/08/30/legality-recording-police

    http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/10-1764P-01A.pdf

  8. doctotwolfie says:

    Alas when truth is banned from the courtroom.

Leave a Reply